A couple of my favourite quotes representing both sides of the debate:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

"God is not what you imagine or what you think you understand. If you understand you have failed." —St. Aurelius Augustine

A sweeping generalization perhaps, but it illustrates the conundrum pretty effectively in my humble opinion.

De Sua, F. (1956)'Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics, for example, would be a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified.'

(I could give a counter-quote from St. Augustine, but that would simply confirm that I'm not making it to heaven.)

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point, which I fear I did not articulate as clearly as I might have, was not that scientists accept theories without "proof", but simply that science can be, has been, and continues to be done without experimentation, where experimentation is impracticable or impossible. It is no less scientific to test theories against observations of natural phenomena in situ than against the results of laboratory research.

Nor was I contending that scientists who accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution (or prior theories) before the advent of genetics did so without evidence (I prefer the word "evidence" to "proof" because, though scientific theories may elicit great confidence through repeated empirical observations, they are never really proved). As mentioned in my last post, at the time of Darwin's work, evidence for his theory existed in observations of living plants and animals, in the fossil record of extinct ones, and in experience with breeding domesticated species. The explanatory power later provided by the laws of genetics and advances in cellular biology, not the least of which was the discovery of DNA, certainly made Darwin's insights all the more compelling. But, even before they arrived on the scene, Darwin's theory was no less an achievement of empiricism.

You are correct that there were other fairly widely accepted theories of evolution before, and even for quite some time after, Darwin's. What distinguished Darwin's was its recognition that natural selection served as the great engine behind speciation. (I believe that at least one contemporary of Darwin's independently hit upon the same idea, but Darwin was the first to publish. Even in those days, I guess, the great engine of intellectual evolution was the rule of publish or perish).

But any proof from the observations of living organisms, of fossil evidence, and even of selective breeding are not sufficient enough evidence to explain Darwinian evolution by natural selection. It fails to identify any manner by which a diversity might be injected into a population and any manner by which traits which are selected for might be passed on to the an organism's progeny. Darwin's theory was insufficient on its own without genetics. In fact, all of the observable evidence you mentioned no more explain's Darwin's theory than it does Lamarck's. If you can explain to me how they explain Darwin's theory, but not Lamarck's, I'd much appreciate it.

When astrophysicists refer to the expansion of the universe, they are referring to the expansion of space, which is not directly observable. What is observable is that the light reaching us from other galaxies is red-shifted -- i.e., its wavelengths are stretched out -- indicating the galaxies are moving away from us. Unless our galaxy occupies a favored position in the universe, the same red shift would be observed from any other. The implication here is that galaxies are not receding from us through space (which otherwise would be another candidate for explanation of the red shift), but that space itself is expanding and carrying along everything in it.

It was some time before the model of an expanding universe achieved its present, nearly uniform acceptance among astronomers and physicists. There were many, Einstein among them (notwithstanding the big bang implications of his own Theory of Relativity), who long preferred the idea of a constant state universe. As with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the expansionary model has been supported both by further and better observations over the years and by its consistency with other theoretical advances.

Are you being serious? You're saying that astrophysicists cannot observe the expansion of space, only the effect the expansion of space has on light waves? How is that different from saying that you cannot see a table, only the effect the table has on the visible wavelengths of light that it reflects?

But really, the main flaw I see in your argument is that comparing red-shifted light to evidence in a crime or historical evidence is completely inaccurate. Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one potential cause for red-shifting (that space is expanding) and that cause is reached through logical inevitability. Using after-effects to reach historical or criminal conclusions might use logic, but it ultimately based upon narrative coherence and an individual's perception of human behavior. And until we can understand human behavior to the extent we can understand mathemtical inevitability, I do not see how the two are comparable at all. If we could use only pure logic, without any recourse to assumptions about behavior or without assumptions about the accuracy of sources, then yes, the science might be comparable to criminal investigation and historical research.

And eys, I know that scientists also assume their sources of information are accurate, but here the issue with accuracy has to do with the accuracy of measurements and whether the information being analyzed is truly relevent to the phenomenon being explained. It has nothing to do with the perspective of the source or whether the source is lying. There might be similarities between certain geological disciplines and the analysis of the placement of archaeological evidence, but that only has to do with dating, not how the evidence is analyzed after dating has been established.

But any proof from the observations of living organisms, of fossil evidence, and even of selective breeding are not sufficient enough evidence to explain Darwinian evolution by natural selection. It fails to identify any manner by which a diversity might be injected into a population and any manner by which traits which are selected for might be passed on to the an organism's progeny. Darwin's theory was insufficient on its own without genetics. In fact, all of the observable evidence you mentioned no more explain's Darwin's theory than it does Lamarck's. If you can explain to me how they explain Darwin's theory, but not Lamarck's, I'd much appreciate it.

Are you being serious? You're saying that astrophysicists cannot observe the expansion of space, only the effect the expansion of space has on light waves? How is that different from saying that you cannot see a table, only the effect the table has on the visible wavelengths of light that it reflects?

But really, the main flaw I see in your argument is that comparing red-shifted light to evidence in a crime or historical evidence is completely inaccurate. Unless I'm mistaken, there is only one potential cause for red-shifting (that space is expanding) and that cause is reached through logical inevitability. Using after-effects to reach historical or criminal conclusions might use logic, but it ultimately based upon narrative coherence and an individual's perception of human behavior. And until we can understand human behavior to the extent we can understand mathemtical inevitability, I do not see how the two are comparable at all. If we could use only pure logic, without any recourse to assumptions about behavior or without assumptions about the accuracy of sources, then yes, the science might be comparable to criminal investigation and historical research.

And eys, I know that scientists also assume their sources of information are accurate, but here the issue with accuracy has to do with the accuracy of measurements and whether the information being analyzed is truly relevent to the phenomenon being explained. It has nothing to do with the perspective of the source or whether the source is lying. There might be similarities between certain geological disciplines and the analysis of the placement of archaeological evidence, but that only has to do with dating, not how the evidence is analyzed after dating has been established.

You've advanced a couple of straw man arguments here which have nothing do with what I said.

With respect to Darwin: If your contention is that, until later advances in genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution was incomplete for want of explanations of the mechanisms by which variations occur and are passed on, you are correct. But, so what? Theories need not be complete to be science. They need not even be correct. Lamarck's theory, like Darwin's, was empirically based. That we are now confident Lamarck was barking up the wrong tree, does not make his theory "unscientific," only wrong. Indeed, it is precisely because Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics was empirically falsifiable that it qualifies as science.

My point, which you seem bent on avoiding, is that experimentation -- the manipulation of variables under study in a controlled environment -- can be very helpful, but it is not necessary to do "science."

Space is expanding everywhere, including the space in front of your eyes. If you can see that happening directly, you possess powers worthy of the characters of DC and Marvel. The expansion of space reveals itself through the red-shifting of light (and, yes, a table is revealed to us visually only through the light that bounces off it). Similarly, current theories that our universe contains dark matter, and in quantities which greatly exceed visible matter, are the product of indirect inferences based on observed phenomena, such as the rotational speed of galaxies, as revealed by the light that reaches us from them.

The analogy between science and crime scene investigation: I don't know where you got the idea that I consider what the police do in investigating crimes to be science. Notwithstanding the exploitation of technologies born of science, I am in full agreement that there is a world of difference between the work of police and the work of scientists.

You've advanced a couple of straw man arguments here which have nothing do with what I said.

With respect to Darwin: If your contention is that, until later advances in genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution was incomplete for want of explanations of the mechanisms by which variations occur and are passed on, you are correct. But, so what? Theories need not be complete to be science. They need not even be correct. Lamarck's theory, like Darwin's, was empirically based. That we are now confident Lamarck was barking up the wrong tree, does not make his theory "unscientific," only wrong. Indeed, it is precisely because Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics was empirically falsifiable that it qualifies as science.

My point, which you seem bent on avoiding, is that experimentation -- the manipulation of variables under study in a controlled environment -- can be very helpful, but it is not necessary to do "science."

Space is expanding everywhere, including the space in front of your eyes. If you can see that happening directly, you possess powers worthy of the characters of DC and Marvel. The expansion of space reveals itself through the red-shifting of light (and, yes, a table is revealed to us visually only through the light that bounces off it). Similarly, current theories that our universe contains dark matter, and in quantities which greatly exceed visible matter, are the product of indirect inferences based on observed phenomena, such as the rotational speed of galaxies, as revealed by the light that reaches us from them.

The analogy between science and crime scene investigation: I don't know where you got the idea that I consider what the police do in investigating crimes to be science. Notwithstanding the exploitation of technologies born of science, I am in full agreement that there is a world of difference between the work of police and the work of scientists.

I'll start with the last, namely that this all started when someone compared science to detective work and I said that it was not due to the fact that detective work deals with unobservable particular phenomena whereas science deals with observable universal phenomena. Someone posited that Darwin's theory is a counter claim and I objected. So that's how this all got started. I assumed by defending the person I was arguing with that you were defending his position, which, apparently, you were not.

Expansion of space: You still did not address how the ability to observe a table is any different from observing these phenomena. We observe the red-shifting of light (granted, not through our eyes, but we still directly observe it) and infer the only conclusion that is logically allowed by observing that phenomenon, that the universe is expanding. Similarly, we observe the light reflected from a table and infer the only conclusion that is logically allowed by observing that phenomenon, that a table is right there. Perhaps our difference is in how we are using the term observable - I'm using it to refer to anything that can be experienced, either through it's continuing occurance or through replication. I'm essentially using it as a means of contrast to unobservable phenomena (i.e. things that can no longer be experienced due to their having finished, namely events of the past). Now, some events of the past are observable in ways that most aren't - namely the way in which astrophysicists can still observe the direct after effects of the "Big Bang". No one can observe the after effects of, say, Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon.

On Darwin: But you seem to be avoiding the point that experimentation is necessary to make science sound. You seem to be claiming that any theory based on the analysis of the world is science. So, is the claim that the stars and planets revolve around the earth science? It was a claim made by observations of the empirical world that was falsifiable. Is the theory of spontaneous generation science, since it too is empirically based and falsifiable? I would say no. There must be some sort of experimental rigor in order to argue for or against a point.

I'll start with the last, namely that this all started when someone compared science to detective work and I said that it was not due to the fact that detective work deals with unobservable particular phenomena whereas science deals with observable universal phenomena.

Presuming you're referring to me - I never claimed science is comparable to detective work; only that the police and judiciary will sometimes resort to scientific disciplines, such as DNA fingerprinting, when and where necessary. If this was not clear in my writing, then I do apologise.

I'll start with the last, namely that this all started when someone compared science to detective work and I said that it was not due to the fact that detective work deals with unobservable particular phenomena whereas science deals with observable universal phenomena. Someone posited that Darwin's theory is a counter claim and I objected. So that's how this all got started. I assumed by defending the person I was arguing with that you were defending his position, which, apparently, you were not.

Expansion of space: You still did not address how the ability to observe a table is any different from observing these phenomena. We observe the redshifting of light (granted, not through our eyes, but we still directly observe it) and infer the only conclusion that is logically allowed by observing that phenomenon, that the universe is expanding. Similarly, we observe the light reflected from a table and infer the only conclusion that is logically allowed by observing that phenomenon, that a table is right there. Perhaps our difference is in how we are using the term observable - I'm using it to refer to anything that can be experienced, either through it's continuing occurrence or through replication. I'm essentially using it as a means of contrast to unobservable phenomena (i.e. things that can no longer be experienced due to their having finished, namely events of the past). Now, some events of the past are observable in ways that most aren't - namely the way in which astrophysicists can still observe the direct after effects of the "Big Bang". No one can observe the after effects of, say, Caesar's decision to cross the Rubicon.

I think we are using the term "observable" in the same sense -- meaning the capacity of a thing to create an impression on us directly through our senses. In the strictest sense, I suppose neither a galaxy nor a table is "observable", since it is the light emitted from the one and reflected by the other, rather than the thing itself, which creates the impression. However, I don't think there is much profit in drawing such fine distinctions, so at odds with common usage. As I use the term, both galaxies and tables are observable.

There is another class of things, however, which are not observable in the same way, and may be perceived only indirectly. Our perceptions of such unobservable phenomena consist of inferences drawn through the application of reason to sensory impressions of other phenomena which are observable. In this unobservable class, I would include the expansion of space, perceived indirectly through the redshifting of galactic light, and dark matter, perceived indirectly through the rotational speeds of galaxies as revealed by their shapes.

(I agree that the "aftereffects" of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, whatever they might be, do not permit the same sort of inference of cause that redshifted light permits. Our knowledge of Caesar's doings stand on the far shakier foundation of human account, perhaps buttressed here and there by archaeological findings. All is not lost to vagary, however, as the event itself may still be observed from a proper vantage point in space a little over two thousand light years away.)

Quote

On Darwin: But you seem to be avoiding the point that experimentation is necessary to make science sound. You seem to be claiming that any theory based on the analysis of the world is science. So, is the claim that the stars and planets revolve around the earth science? It was a claim made by observations of the empirical world that was falsifiable. Is the theory of spontaneous generation science, since it too is empirically based and falsifiable? I would say no. There must be some sort of experimental rigor in order to argue for or against a point.

As I have previously stated, when possible, experimentation is an excellent means of examining the reliability of a theory. Unfortunately, experimentation is not always possible when a theory is advanced, given the constraints imposed by the existing state of the technological arts. This does not mean, however, that we must necessarily give up on empirical verification of that the science cannot be made "sound". Frequently, the discipline offered by experimentation may be exacted through comparison of theoretical predictions with observations of natural phenomena, as when Arthur Eddington's photographs of the apparent displacement of stars during the 1919 solar eclipse confirmed relativity's predictions about the Sun's warping of space.

No, I am not claiming that any theory based on the analysis of the world is science. I won't bother to rehash the features which make a theory science, as another poster in this thread (it might have been Demalachine) did an excellent job of it some days ago.

Where you and I differ is that you seem to require that a theory be proved right before it can be called science. In my view, however, science is a methodology, not a result. It is as valuable when the light it sheds illuminates a dead end as when it shows the way forward. Science's greatest strength is its capacity to jettison those of its products (like Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics) which eventually fail empirical tests or are eclipsed by more persuasive approximations of the observable world. I think science is best though of as a process by which approximations of the world are successively refined or replaced with better ones.

I don't know enough about the history of the Ptolemaic, geocentric model of the heavens to tell you whether it was a product of the scientific method, though the development of the scientific method is generally credited to a much later time. The Ptolemaic model was at least a step in the direction of science, as it was obviously based on painstaking empirical observation of the sky, did a remarkably accurate job of predicting the apparent movements of heavenly bodies, and made falsifiable predictions. If it fell short as a piece of science, it was not so much in its being wrong, as it was in its failure to provide any reasoned explanation for all the little curlicues and reversals of direction in the paths of the stars and planets required to make the thing work.

Though replacement of the Ptolemaic with the Copernican, heliocentric model was a signal achievement, the latter was not without its own serious faults, chief among them its claim that the planets moved in circular orbits about the Sun (as Kepler later demonstrated, the orbits are elliptical). And, of course, the Copernican model was "incomplete" for its failure to explain the mechanism that kept the planets in their orbits, in much the same way Darwin's theory of evolution was "incomplete" for the absence of genetics. But, surely you would not say that, for the error of circularity and the failure to explain gravity, what Copernicus did was not science.

Similarly, Newton's conception of gravity as a force exerted by masses upon each other instantaneously across space has turned out not to be as accurate an explication of falling objects as Einstein's warping of space. Was Newton's work not science?

The problem with your definition, I think, is that there will be no science until science has attained the certainty of religion.

There's this one part of the second article that I'll quote here, as it covers a lot of issues.

Quote

When a religion is born from such a hypothesis, and it goes on to assert that salvation is possible through the observance and endorsement of its Deity’s revealed behavioural codes, it becomes undesirable for followers to allow flouting of the codes, and also to keep the means of salvation from anybody who has not yet submitted. This is why Christianity cannot leave you and I alone, and the endorsement of evangelism is well attested in its foundational texts (for example in Mt 28:19).

Aside from the patronising and offensive act of posting this leaflet through the door of a house in which an Anti- Theist and Atheist resides, aside from reassuring me that if my life (and it most certainly is) in error, I can be corrected with the help of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is something incredibly dangerous and downright creepy about the motivations that mobilise these distributors. It is the same conviction that arguably endorses acts of terrorism, jostles for nuclear power and imposes oppressive governmental regimes such as The Taliban.

What more can I say? I agree with all of this. I know some of the arguments will be 'that's not all religions'. Well, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. All religions need new followers and take pains to recruit. The propoganda that they spew in your faces in the media (whether overt or covert) and the constant assertions of 'religious freedom'. What about the religious freedom of children born into a religion and forced to believe until they're deemed old enough to choose for themselves? Even then, they can be shunned for choosing a different path. And what about me? What about my freedom to not be questioned on my beliefs or have these intrusive adverts and leaflets shoved through my door? Or to be stopped on a dark street by a Mormon! Seriously! Did he really think he was going to convince me by ambushing me as I walked alone in a fairly dodgy area?

This is nothing to do with science or proving the existence of anything, it's about my right to decide my own beliefs, without intrusion.

You can't force belief, but theres indoctrination, peer pressure, "This will happen if you don't" cons, that all add up to the continuation of religions. Many children stay closet homosexuals out of fear of dissaproval from their parents, the same happens for religion, one key example is I got disowned by my family because I said I'm not able to hold the christian belief, because I don't identify myself as that religion.

You are making the assumption that children have the same rights (i.e. "religious freedom") as adults. They don't.

Parents have the right, and in many cultures, the obligation, to pass on their religious customs and practices to their children. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less obligatory.

And as Lilias stated, even though these customs may be passed on to and practiced by those children, one cannot force "belief".

When you don't know any other way and aren't allowed to see any different, I would call that force. I've seen friends who went church and went through the motions, complete with getting set up with other church-going teenagers, all because they didn't want to disappoint their parents. The guilt of not living up to your parents expectations in the name of religion, yeah, I'd call that force.

You can't force belief, but theres indoctrination, peer pressure, "This will happen if you don't" cons, that all add up to the continuation of religions. Many children stay closet homosexuals out of fear of dissaproval from their parents, the same happens for religion, one key example is I got disowned by my family because I said I'm not able to hold the christian belief, because I don't identify myself as that religion.

All that indoctrination and peer pressure can force is the show of belief, in people who choose to adopt the facade in order to avoid trouble for themselves. An arguably legitimate reason to uphold the pretence, but still nothing more than a pretence.

When you don't know any other way and aren't allowed to see any different, I would call that force. I've seen friends who went church and went through the motions, complete with getting set up with other church-going teenagers, all because they didn't want to disappoint their parents. The guilt of not living up to your parents expectations in the name of religion, yeah, I'd call that force.

Short of keeping a child locked up from birth and feeding them only what you want them to know, there's no such thing as 'knowing no other way'. The closest to such a lifestyle are the Amish communities, and even for them the practice only works so-so. People find ways to get alternative viewpoints.

The bottom line is that there is no difference whatsoever between raising a child in the faith of the parents' choice and sending them to the school of the parents' choice (and making sure they don't skip!).

That's what makes it worse! Forced to go through the motions of an organised religion, to try to fake belief for the sake of others... If it was real belief that they had come to themselves, in spite of how they were raised, that would be completely different. That anyone should be made to follow the practise of any religion for family duty is exactly what is wrong with organised religion.

That's what makes it worse! Forced to go through the motions of an organised religion, to try to fake belief for the sake of others... If it was real belief that they had come to themselves, in spite of how they were raised, that would be completely different. That anyone should be made to follow the practise of any religion for family duty is exactly what is wrong with organised religion.

Religion is hardly the only thing in this life where people can face the choice of pretending to make things easy for themselves or voicing disagreement and going against those around them. Happens all the time, and it's not fun in any of its versions.

You don't have children yet, so take it from those of us who do: Parents make decisions on behalf of their children. A LOT of them. That's what parenting is about. Not all are correct, not all are wrong. One sack doesn't fit all.

When you don't know any other way and aren't allowed to see any different, I would call that force. I've seen friends who went church and went through the motions, complete with getting set up with other church-going teenagers, all because they didn't want to disappoint their parents. The guilt of not living up to your parents expectations in the name of religion, yeah, I'd call that force.

I see.

And are children "forced" to go to school?

"Forced" to go to the pediatrician to receive a vaccination?

"Forced" to eat their veggies and go to bed at a reasonable hour?

Whether you like it or not, every parent decides to raise his or her child in the way they see fit. They make decisions in the child's best interests and in some, probably most families, those best interests include religious instruction and practices. It may not be the way you would raise a child, but it isn't your decision to make.

When you have a child, you are free to raise your child how you see fit. That may or may not include religious practices.

So honour beatings on young women who 'dishonour' their families are okay because that's how their parents want to raise them? Or female circumcision? Yes, I'm choosing some extreme examples but I'm sure that the parents who do that say 'well, it's what's best for them' and they're all religiously motivated.

I think that it's ridiculous that there's so much that people get away with because they put it under the header of 'religious freedom'. There's a time and a place for cultural respect, but you can't just write everything off as parental rights.

I've been born in a religious family and I have been raised accordingly. Once I got to adulthood, I got to make my own choices and I had all the time and the opportunities to ponder about them and get to a decision because, amongst the other things, my parents have taught me the importance of freedom and the necessity of taking my own responsibilities. The choice I took is not important here, the important part is that I got to make it.

The principle behind a religion should be that one should follow it out of his/her own free will. So the child must be put into the condition of making a responsible choice.

The fact that in some cases this does not happen I tend personally to put all together with the forcing a child to make THAT kind of studies or forcing a son/daughter not to frequent/engage/marry some kind of people. And the motivation behind that may be religious as well as political or social... or racist and homophobic if we want to add. There is a whole plethora of things that we could mention here.

So honour beatings on young women who 'dishonour' their families are okay because that's how their parents want to raise them? Or female circumcision? Yes, I'm choosing some extreme examples but I'm sure that the parents who do that say 'well, it's what's best for them' and they're all religiously motivated.

I think that it's ridiculous that there's so much that people get away with because they put it under the header of 'religious freedom'. There's a time and a place for cultural respect, but you can't just write everything off as parental rights.

You can think whatever you like, and you are entitled to your opinion.

However, a parent's right to raise a child as he or she sees fit is paramount, provided that the parent is not engaging in illegal activity.